A Patient Perspective on Seizure Detection and Forecasting

The present and future of seizure detection, prediction, and forecasting with machine learning, including the future impact on clinical trials

Seizures have a profound impact on quality of life and mortality, in part because they can be challenging both to detect and forecast. Seizure detection relies upon accurately differentiating transient neurological symptoms caused by abnormal epileptiform activity from similar symptoms with different causes. Seizure forecasting aims to identify when a person has a high or low likelihood of seizure, which is related to seizure prediction. Machine learning and artificial intelligence are data-driven techniques integrated with neurodiagnostic monitoring technologies that attempt to accomplish both of those tasks. In this narrative review, we describe both the existing software and hardware approaches for seizure detection and forecasting, as well as the concepts for how to evaluate the performance of new technologies for future application in clinical practice. These technologies include long-term monitoring both with and without electroencephalography (EEG) that report very high sensitivity as well as reduced false positive detections. In addition, we describe the implications of seizure detection and forecasting upon the evaluation of novel treatments for seizures within clinical trials. Based on these existing data, long-term seizure detection and forecasting with machine learning and artificial intelligence could fundamentally change the clinical care of people with seizures, but there are multiple validation steps necessary to rigorously demonstrate their benefits and costs, relative to the current standard.

Fostering patient engagement through the co-design of seizure detection and monitoring technologies: A roadmap for collaboration between research and development

The large number of technological developments suggests that patients with epilepsy can be better supported in the management of their seizures, especially when their condition is drug resistant. Patients and their caregivers, who are generally supportive of seizure detection and monitoring technologies, can provide relevant information to improve their effectiveness. We propose a comprehensive co-design approach to support more efficient development of seizure detection and monitoring technologies. Such an approach should follow the steps of the research and development process, take into account the temporal requirements characteristic of seizure management, focus on the themes of autonomy and self-management, and be guided by disease experts. If co-design practices are to continue to contribute to their development, they must also meet the scientific requirements of validity and reproducibility.

Learning to generalize seizure forecasts

OBJECTIVE

Epilepsy is characterized by spontaneous seizures that recur at unexpected times. Nonetheless, using years-long electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings, we previously found that patient-reported seizures consistently occur when interictal epileptiform activity (IEA) cyclically builds up over days. This multidien (multiday) interictal-ictal relationship, which is shared across patients, may bear phasic information for forecasting seizures, even if individual patterns of seizure timing are unknown. To test this rigorously in a large retrospective dataset, we pretrained algorithms on data recorded from a group of patients, and forecasted seizures in other, previously unseen patients.

METHODS

We used retrospective long-term data from participants (N = 159) in the RNS System clinical trials, including intracranial EEG recordings (icEEG), and from two participants in the UNEEG Medical clinical trial of a subscalp EEG system (sqEEG). Based on IEA detections, we extracted instantaneous multidien phases and trained generalized linear models (GLMs) and recurrent neural networks (RNNs) to forecast the probability of seizure occurrence at a 24-h horizon.

RESULTS

With GLMs and RNNs, seizures could be forecasted above chance in 79% and 81% of previously unseen subjects with a median discrimination of area under the curve (AUC) = .70 and .69 and median Brier skill score (BSS) = .07 and .08. In direct comparison, individualized models had similar median performance (AUC = .67, BSS = .08), but for fewer subjects (60%). Moreover, calibration of pretrained models could be maintained to accommodate different seizure rates across subjects.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings suggest that seizure forecasting based on multidien cycles of IEA can generalize across patients, and may drastically reduce the amount of data needed to issue forecasts for individuals who recently started collecting chronic EEG data. In addition, we show that this generalization is independent of the method used to record seizures (patient-reported vs. electrographic) or IEA (icEEG vs. sqEEG).